Clinton v. Obama archived
It does seem Obama is an unknown.
But Edwards is a VP candidate in waiting, and Hillary is...well, Hillary, and that dog don't hunt.
ed: dont take that dog expression literally!
But Edwards is a VP candidate in waiting, and Hillary is...well, Hillary, and that dog don't hunt.
ed: dont take that dog expression literally!
threeringale,
thanks for the link. But when I mentioned "toughness", what I really meant was the inevitable Republican onslought on his integrity and skills etc etc.--not how he would Protect America. I think he would do the latter at least as well or better than the current occupant of the White House.
thanks for the link. But when I mentioned "toughness", what I really meant was the inevitable Republican onslought on his integrity and skills etc etc.--not how he would Protect America. I think he would do the latter at least as well or better than the current occupant of the White House.
Did anyone know who Governor Bill Clinton was in 1992? Yes, Obama may not be a known commodity but it does not make him any less qualified. The "experienced" politicians are the ones that got us into Iraq and have grinded Congress to a halt. I'm tired of partisan politics and it will only get worse with another President Clinton. I like a candidate that speaks to our hopes and not our fears. While I don't think Obama is a Kennedy, I do find him inspiring and genuine. Nothing about Hillary is inspiring or genuine.
I agree with Dave. Obama and Edwards seem shallow. Sure they can inspire with a message of change, and are very likeable, and position themselves as Washington outsiders. But the country has fallen for that kind of populist charm before, and ended up with GEORGE W. BUSH.
I like Hillary because she (like Bill) just seems to study hard and work hard. I'm a manager at work, and I'm sick of working with people who can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. So, if I'm going to have a president working for me, all I want is someone who will work their butt off, and do whatever it takes to get the job done in the most dilligent, informed and efficient manner.
I like Hillary because she (like Bill) just seems to study hard and work hard. I'm a manager at work, and I'm sick of working with people who can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. So, if I'm going to have a president working for me, all I want is someone who will work their butt off, and do whatever it takes to get the job done in the most dilligent, informed and efficient manner.
By the way, did you ever wonder whether a whole slew of Republicans went out and voted for Obama in Iowa because they think he's ultimately unelectable, and want him to be the Democratic candidate for that reason?
I gave both parties four hours of my time on Saturday night with Charlie Gibson "moderating." I have decided that I have heard most of what is important...I am a democrat. I was teased by a little Republican rhetoric early last year. I have not crossed THAT line. I am for Obama. I love Edwards populist message. I think Hillary has more inside cred. But my vote in the primary will be for Obama. He is the most change agent in the pack. He identified it, named it and will bring the most youthful enthusiasm to both his campaign and to those seeking the exact opposite of the Bush and Clinton families. I think he can grow into his job (and I think that about JE and HC) but he brings an energy to the electorate that feels robbed when Bush "won" Florida, and when sentiment about the war grows weary. He will ignite a new youthful enthusiasm into politics that hasn't been felt since JFK. Hillary cannot do that. Plus she would spend her whole time justifying her "changes" at her age. Obama will have a lot to learn, but he is presidential on the world stage. I don't know how certain "world" leaders would handle Hillary. She's no Margaret Thatcher.
Jan 8, 2008 at 1:57am Edited
Posted By: noo2woodBy the way, did you ever wonder whether a whole slew of Republicans went out and voted for Obama in Iowa because they think he's ultimately unelectable, and want him to be the Democratic candidate for that reason?
Its a caucus. You either go to the democratic or republican caucus. All the republicans candidates needed their supporter to be in the republican caucus, to vote for them. I can't see any republican candidate telling his supporters to leave just to influence the democratic vote.
Besides, polling and caucus interviews showed that the democratic caucus were heavily infested with independent voters who overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The consensus was that 70-75% of the independents went to the democratic caucus. If this carries through to the general elections, where 75% independents vote democratic, you can kiss the republican party goodbye.
That would be ironic. The Bush legacy - killing the Republican party.
Anyone else getting the impression that Dave is a big time Hilliary supporter? :bigsmile:
"If this carries through to the general elections, where 75% independents vote democratic, you can kiss the republican party goodbye."
That's what I'm hoping for--something like 1980 in reverse, where the Dem candidate carries 49 states.
That's what I'm hoping for--something like 1980 in reverse, where the Dem candidate carries 49 states.
"Obama will have a lot to learn, but he is presidential on the world stage. I don't know how certain "world" leaders would handle Hillary. She's no Margaret Thatcher."
Can't we just talk about the content of her character? I have a dream . . .
Can't we just talk about the content of her character? I have a dream . . .
I feel like Obama would enter the oval office as an energetic but inexperienced idealist and would either fall prey and be helpless to the vicious Washington establishment ala Jimmy Carter, or would end up surrounding himself with more experienced advisors and end up a part of that same Washington establishment ala George W. Bush. I think Hillary Clinton has more of the same character as John F. Kennedy, in that they both have a tireless work ethic that takes the time to constantly question and evaluate. I've had enough of blind decisiveness, stubborn resolve, and insidious charm. I want a thinker back in the White House. I want that nerd in the back office that uses boring things like knowledge and reason to fight, and methodically makes things happen without all the fanfare.
but but but... Obama is proving the cynics wrong! Hope is on the move! We're all in this TOGETHER!
Posted By: brealer"Obama will have a lot to learn, but he is presidential on the world stage. I don't know how certain "world" leaders would handle Hillary. She's no Margaret Thatcher."
Can't we just talk about the content of her character? I have a dream . . .
brealer, Obviously, that dream is passe for some.
Some MOLers apparently missed all the specifics Obama answered to in each of the past umpteen million "debates" which were really just media interrogations.
Here's the GOOD NEWS - democrats have an outstanding group of candidates to choose from (unlike the republicans this year). I'm an Edwards supporter, but have to say Clinton has gotten the raw end of the media stick throughout not just the past week, but much of her run. The media really does drive public opinion on these things. They generally don't have ultimate control (if they did, McCain would have had the 2000 repub nomination), but they absolutely can - and do - skew the debate away from substance and toward cosmetics.
By the way, re: earlier post about edwards as veep, he's publicly stated he wouldn't accept VP slot in 2008 - so it'll be interesting to see if he goes back on that ('cause it's starting to look like that's what he's angling for by siding w/obama against hillary in saturday's debate). MSNBC's 9pm dan abrams show last night was the only place i've seen on TV that really covered the story of how unfair the Hillary bashing has been - and they had a panel across the ideological spectrum agreeing on that theme.
By the way, re: earlier post about edwards as veep, he's publicly stated he wouldn't accept VP slot in 2008 - so it'll be interesting to see if he goes back on that ('cause it's starting to look like that's what he's angling for by siding w/obama against hillary in saturday's debate). MSNBC's 9pm dan abrams show last night was the only place i've seen on TV that really covered the story of how unfair the Hillary bashing has been - and they had a panel across the ideological spectrum agreeing on that theme.
One thing Obama should not do, and his supporters should not do, is trade on misogyny, or patronize the female candidate. That's what Republicans do. He of all people, and his backers of all people, should not do that. And he should have written a book about his mother, not his father.
Jan 8, 2008 at 7:34am Edited
I thought this was a very interesting op-ed:
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father in this race-conscious country, she is considered black she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, youre not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
Thats why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obamas public style or Bill Clintons either without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects only the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more masculine for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there arent too many of them); and because there is still no right way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
Im not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. Thats why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
Im supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this countrys talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. Im not opposing Mr. Obama; if hes the nominee, Ill volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of playing the gender card when citing the old boys club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didnt.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obamas dependence on the old for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. Its time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: Im supporting her because shell be a great president and because shes a woman.
Op-Ed Contributor
Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father in this race-conscious country, she is considered black she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, youre not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
Thats why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obamas public style or Bill Clintons either without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects only the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more masculine for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there arent too many of them); and because there is still no right way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
Im not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. Thats why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
Im supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this countrys talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. Im not opposing Mr. Obama; if hes the nominee, Ill volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of playing the gender card when citing the old boys club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didnt.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obamas dependence on the old for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. Its time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: Im supporting her because shell be a great president and because shes a woman.
I'd support her too if she weren't so easy to be taken on by the Republicans. Her voting record is not independent enough of the Bush establishment for my taste. Other than that, I think she's a courageous, great person.
"because there is still no right way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what."
Amen. You out there, Stacey Jennings?
Amen. You out there, Stacey Jennings?
I just paraphrased that article in another topic. It makes a valid point, I think.
Hillary is finished...after the BLOWOUT tonight in NH, she can't recover. It is going to be Obama. He seems SO much more charismatic and energetic. People are gravitating to him very quickly. He is also capturing the younger vote. Plus being from the Midwest as opposed to the Northeast he can pull the Midwestern swing states, which are going to decide the election.
New Hampshire is an open state, meaning unaffiliated (NJ term) voters can vote in either primary. This year it looks like they are swarming to Obama. In 2000 they went for McCain. This is btw hurting McCain who is neck and neck with plastic man, I mean Romney.
If Hill is smart she will bide her time until Super Tuesday where most if not all the primaries are closed (meaning you have to be registered as a party member to vote) and she may pick up more delegates than the winner(s) of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina combined. Anyway, that is what I heard and I would never count a Clinton out until the last vote is cast.
If Hill is smart she will bide her time until Super Tuesday where most if not all the primaries are closed (meaning you have to be registered as a party member to vote) and she may pick up more delegates than the winner(s) of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina combined. Anyway, that is what I heard and I would never count a Clinton out until the last vote is cast.
charlie/brealer,
It certainly helps to go around saying "I have a dream" when you've actually done things that help that dream. Concrete things like, say, boycotting the buses in Montgomery, AL.
It certainly helps to go around saying "I have a dream" when you've actually done things that help that dream. Concrete things like, say, boycotting the buses in Montgomery, AL.
Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina = 133 or so delegates
California = 370
Florida = 185
NJ = 109
Michigan = 128
That's if she can hold on to her current double-digit leads in those states, which she can if she spends money.
California = 370
Florida = 185
NJ = 109
Michigan = 128
That's if she can hold on to her current double-digit leads in those states, which she can if she spends money.
Dreaming is free, noo2. So is posting on a message board. HC works to realize her dream, though. You have to give her that, don't you?
noo2wood:
Yup. Tell ya what. You go around doing community organizing for a couple of years. Do you know what that is? Can you go door to door, looking for people who are underprivileged, undereducated, and other unders....and get them to help themselves, hook them up with services and agencies, and make things better?
Once you have had that experience,
then we'll talk.
Yup. Tell ya what. You go around doing community organizing for a couple of years. Do you know what that is? Can you go door to door, looking for people who are underprivileged, undereducated, and other unders....and get them to help themselves, hook them up with services and agencies, and make things better?
Once you have had that experience,
then we'll talk.
Agree, Dave, but challenge in places like California is it's a closed primary ... independents can't vote as Reps, have to go Dem ... why that is, who knows? ... and Barack seems to do better than Hillary with the indies. I am for Hillary, it's not over, but it's complicated ....
My hope is if Barack wins tonight, it'll be by small margin, so Hill team can claim some kind of momentum ... but I do agree with the premise ... Iowa and NH and SC are just three relatively small states, first two not very diverse, they shouldn't speak for rest of country ....
My hope is if Barack wins tonight, it'll be by small margin, so Hill team can claim some kind of momentum ... but I do agree with the premise ... Iowa and NH and SC are just three relatively small states, first two not very diverse, they shouldn't speak for rest of country ....
So dave and apple,you support the Giuliani strategy? I don't think it's going to work for him and I don't think Hillary should count on it working for her.
So you support Mike Dukakais? Or maybe Jed Bartlett?
Posted By: noo2wood I want that nerd in the back office that uses boring things like knowledge and reason to fight, and methodically makes things happen without all the fanfare.
So you support Mike Dukakais? Or maybe Jed Bartlett?
Jan 8, 2008 at 10:06am Edited
Posted By: lurker
That's what I'm hoping for--something like 1980 in reverse, where the Dem candidate carries 49 states.
1964. (And you mean 1984 not 1980)
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
May 5, 2024 at 7:35pm
-
May 5, 2024 at 11:14am
-
May 4, 2024 at 1:08pm
Help Wanted
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
Cat Lovers - become part of our lovely Silver Hound Cat Sitter team
May 3, 2024 at 2:12pm
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Part-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
Lessons/Instruction
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Lastly, it is the media who make or break candidates in this poll-driven TV democracy we live in, just as they sold the Iraq war to the American people. The ratings are better when the emphasis is more on form than content. If you want to know about how substantive the candidates are, go to their respective websites. For now, let's enjoy their "rhetorical flourishes" and "near emotional breakdowns," events that are best made for TV. That said, Hillary's tears are garnering more attention in the press worldwide than her plans to change America.